38 
REVIEWS. 
Bentham 1285, or tlie extremes as 75'2 : 100. Hooker and Arnott have 
steadily adhered to a medium course in this respect, although even 
they maintain under some “critical” genera, more numerous “ species” 
than we apprehend are founded upon adequate natural characters. 
We wholly agree with Prof. Babington that it is “our business to 
decide upon the probable distinctness of plants before we attempt 
to define thembut we do not agree with him that when defined 
they should necessarily rank as of specific value, as though nothing 
of inferior grade were worthy of definition. We believe it would 
not be for the interest of botanical science to discourage the most 
careful search after the characteristics of every form from the indi¬ 
vidual upwards, nor should we object when these characters are com¬ 
mon and constant, more or less, to a number of individuals, that they 
should be referred to in our plant-manuals and described with need¬ 
ful detail, but we do strongly object to the elevation to specific rank 
of forms which traced over a sufficiently wide area are found to be 
but local or transitional modifications of a species.* The wholesale 
manufacture of species, against which we protest, makes a mischief 
sorely felt in every attempt at philosophical generalization and com¬ 
parison, especially in the case of comparisons of the vegetation of 
distant areas. We are willing to grant that Prof. Babington himself, 
and perhaps some half dozen other British botanists who have made 
the Brambles their special study for years, might name 50 or 80 per 
cent, of his so-called species in accordance with the nomenclature of 
his book, but we confidently defy the best botanists in our country 
—not Bubologists — to do anything of the kind. 
The circumstance that some of these “ species” may be identified 
by independent observers after long study and comparison argues 
nothing in favour of their specific validity, any more than it would 
in the case of the entire-leaved form of Capsella J3. pastoris , which 
has the advantage that any dunce can recognise it. But this exces¬ 
sive multiplication of specific names is far from being confined to the 
Brambles, though perhaps they are unfortunate enough to offer 
the most flagrant instance. Either from a contractedness of view, 
a want of extended comparison, or from an idea that forms described 
of subordinate rank to the species are never noticed, some botanists, 
and Prof. Babington amongst them, have a tendency, whatever group 
they minutely study, to add to its species. It is curious to con¬ 
trast with this the course pursued by other botanists, whom we 
know to have the greatest advantage in respect to the extent of 
material available for their study, and who feel themselves com¬ 
pelled, the more abundant this may be, to class together as forms 
of one species what they had previously regarded as distinct specifi- 
* The value of Mr. Bentham’s Flora to botanists would have been much en¬ 
hanced had many more of the forms been alluded to and briefly described under 
their respective species, which he has sunk as varieties, retaining only the name, 
or passed over indeed without any mention. 
